Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

William Robertson wrote:

> ... much of the "high entanglement" you refer to is, I believe, mostly due to AGW.  Scientists would not be in so deep in this entanglement if they simply presented facts and let up on the propaganda (dire predictions of catastrophe).

This would mean, I assume, going no further than showing people graphs of temperature versus time and possibly CO2 concentrations versus time, but certainly not in close conjunction lest we be accused of propaganda for suggesting a link.  Indeed, we should refuse to "speculate" about *any* possible causes and let our perfectly capable and intelligent fellow citizens figure out for themselves whether the trend *might* be related to human population and energy use and, therefore, *might* be accelerating exponentially, and what *might* happen with a several degree rise in average temperature.  After all, how many of us don't appreciate a nice warm day?  Of course, even the graphs might be a little beyond the pale since they involve making judgments about proxies and all.

In any event am I correct in understanding that you would have us, under *no* circumstances, predict catastrophe?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona